The Golden Knights begin their inaugural season tomorrow night and the club is still out of sync. Capfriendly has the team’s alignment as 11 forwards, nine defenders and two goalies. I imagine Brandon Pirri will be forward No. 12, but the nine defenders need to be culled.

Edmonton is playing Eric Gryba as No. 6 and I’m not sure Yohann Auvitu has earned the trust of the coaching staff based on performance. Is there an opportunity to make a deal?

Bob McKenzie: No guarantee it’s imminent by any means, but keep an eye on VGK as expansion team is in trade mode. May move a goalie (Pickard?) and a D. VGK expected to hold onto vet D Engelland, Garrison, Sbisa and won’t part with kids Theodore, Schmidt and C Miller but any other D possible. Source

That leaves Clayton Stoner (who is on IR), Brayden McNabb, Jon Merrill, Griffin Reinhart and Brad Hunt. Hmmm. I don’t know that there’s a lot there for Edmonton, but let’s have a last at the entire group to identify attractive options.

GOLDEN KNIGHTS BLUE (alpha)

LD Brayden McNabb. $1.7 MILLION, UFA summer 2018. Missed a bunch of time last season with the Kings due to an arm injury. McNabb would be a fine addition (his possession numbers are excellent) and he has had success in the NHL (he is 26).

LD Jon Merrill. $1.1375 MILLION, RFA SUMMER 2018. He’s a big defender with some two-way ability. Fancy stats don’t boast much but do suggest he could play successfully on a depth pair.

RD Colin Miller. $1.0 MILLION, RFA summer 2018. He’s pretty close to ideal, young enough to grow with the group and experienced enough to be a plug and play option. Good two-way player, Puck IQ had him playing 45 percent of his season against mid-level competition and delivering good results. The Oilers have some extra forwards hanging around, Miller is under control moving forward. Would you trade Jujhar Khaira for him?

LD Griffin Reinhart. $800,000, RFA summer 2019. Reinhart has draft pedigree and the organization valued him before the expansion draft. No reason to think they value him less now.

LD Nate Schmidt. $2.25 MILLION, UFA summer 2019. This is a very interesting player, under contract and with successful possession numbers a year ago. He played mostly mid-level opposition (source: Puck IQ) and sawed off the competition. He is a good puck mover and can play either side according to The Hockey News.

Who would you choose?

Enjoyed this Post?

Subscribe to our RSS Feed, Follow us on Twitter or simply recommend us to friends and colleagues!

The FF% column in the player table is redundant once you’ve listed 5v5 FF-FA. You should consider replacing it with 5v5 GF-GA.

5v5 GF-GA is really, really important. It’s what happened. Here’s where winning happened, here’s where losing happened. Without that context, Fenwick is just Fenwick. It’s not winning and losing. But when you include GF-GA, you can get into did a player win or lose in a way we can be happy with, i.e., how did possession look?

The way you’re doing it, you’re setting winning at Fenwick as the goal. That is not the goal. Scoring more goals is the goal. And you’re leaving out score effects which takes you even further from what happened. So we can expect recaps where Russell (as an example) will get caved on Fenwick (and will get called out for it) in a game that we win by 2 and the Russell pairing comes out even (which won’t get mentioned in the present format,).

You seem committed to the idea we can understand the game through the numbers we record in the course of a game. 5v5 goals are the most important numbers on the record for tracking team and player performance.

LT, This doesn’t rhyme. The Bob Father has RD Miller on the hold list ahead of GR. Vegas picked GR ahead of JK in the expansion draft. So why would they give more than GR for JK??? The price for Miller is going to be a lot higher than JK.

If RD Miller isn’t available something else gives. The other GMs have waited out McPhee’s waiver eligible D stockpile and now VGK can only run a few days with 11F. Would not object at all to GR if he really is at a forced sale price. I think VGK keeps GR.

The FF% column in the player table is redundant once you’ve listed 5v5 FF-FA. You should consider replacing it with 5v5 GF-GA.

5v5 GF-GA is really, really important. It’s what happened. Here’s where winning happened, here’s where losing happened. Without that context, Fenwick is just Fenwick. It’s not winning and losing. But when you include GF-GA, you can get into did a player win or lose in a way we can be happy with, i.e., how did possession look?

The way you’re doing it, you’re setting winning at Fenwick as the goal. That is not the goal. Scoring more goals is the goal. And you’re leaving out score effects which takes you even further from what happened. So we can expect recaps where Russell (as an example) will get caved on Fenwick (and will get called out for it) in a game that we win by 2 and the Russell pairing comes out even (which won’t get mentioned in the present format,).

You seem committed to the idea we can understand the game through the numbers we record in the course of a game. 5v5 goals are the most important numbers on the record for tracking team and player performance.

Hoping you’ll respond. I’ll drop it if you don’t.

I attempt to give a ‘quick view’ in the table and then discuss lines and pairings in the notes below. I moved to Fenwick from Corsi because people were complaining. I will keep it as is but attempt to add in more ‘notes’ after the table.

I also link to my source, allowing readers to add what isn’t included in my coverage. Hope that helps!

Georges: You seem committed to the idea we can understand the game through the numbers we record in the course of a game. 5v5 goals are the most important numbers on the record for tracking team and player performance.

The issues are sample size and confounding factors like bad goalering.

However, I agree that the FF percentage number is redundant and that GF-GA would be a good replacement. Or even SCF-SCA. Assuming LT has the time and data and desire to make the change.

LT, This doesn’t rhyme. The Bob Father has RD Miller on the hold list ahead of GR. Vegas picked GR ahead of JK in the expansion draft. So why would they give more than GR for JK??? The price for Miller is going to be a lot higher than JK.

If RD Miller isn’t available something else gives. The other GMs have waited out McPhee’s waiver eligible D stockpile and now VGK can only run a few days with 11F. Would not object at all to GR if he really is at a forced sale price. I think VGK keeps GR.

Vegas picked defensemen because they assumed the blue would have trade value. They were right but have since cornered themselves by having too many D on opening night. Khaira is a reasonable option for their roster. As for Mr. McKenzie, I agree, when he says a player isn’t going anywhere I believe him. My post was more about what Edmonton might find interesting, while also acknowledging the reality of the situation.

Lowetide: I attempt to give a ‘quick view’ in the table and then discuss lines and pairings in the notes below. I moved to Fenwick from Corsi because people were complaining. I will keep it as is but attempt to add in more ‘notes’ after the table.

I also link to my source, allowing readers to add what isn’t included in my coverage. Hope that helps!

I think it will help if you glance at goals when you’re preparing the commentary. But you’re the one putting in the work here, sir. Much respect.

Lowetide: I attempt to give a ‘quick view’ in the table and then discuss lines and pairings in the notes below. I moved to Fenwick from Corsi because people were complaining. I will keep it as is but attempt to add in more ‘notes’ after the table.

I also link to my source, allowing readers to add what isn’t included in my coverage. Hope that helps!

Have you ever thought of looking at CORSI REL? Maybe including those numbers too?lol

Lowetide: Vegas picked defensemen because they assumed the blue would have trade value. They were right but have since cornered themselves by having too many D on opening night. Khaira is a reasonable option for their roster. As for Mr. McKenzie, I agree, when he says a player isn’t going anywhere I believe him. My post was more about what Edmonton might find interesting, while also acknowledging the reality of the situation.

Interesting angle. They won’t leave Shipachyov in the A for long, but I guess they could test drive a F return and leave Alex Tuch parked in the A for now with Theodore.

Suspect they’ve always wanted picks back. They’ve been pushed to the wall on price. If Chia offered a a lesser pick to leave GR untouched they might want that now. pre-season +/- is small potatoes, but GR was their only positive D and I’ve seen the detailed breakdowns and think you are correct that Chia’s valuation (not enough value to protect, but of some interest) is unchanged. Of course heads will explode if they add a 4th or 5th to the pile of picks to track in case one has a better career. Consolation prize. No room for Kelly.

Miller may be VGK’s top RHD. I really don’t think they’d even consider trading him unless it was a big overpay. I think Edmonton is either now looking at a deadline picks for player deal (Green or Gudbranson), or maybe getting a player back in a Nugent-Hopkins plus deal (Faulk, Pesce, Savard, Gudas).

Yes, of course. But the reason, as you likely already know, that Fenwick and other measures are often favoured over goals is due to larger samples and things like goalering. You can have a good day possession-wise and come out -2. That’s still descriptive, btw. 😉

Was going to have a “as you likely already know” in my original reply, but it slipped me mind.

Georges: I think it will help if you glance at goals when you’re preparing the commentary. But you’re the one putting in the work here, sir. Much respect.

For me, we’re setting out as wide a net as possible. I trust the reader has a knowledge of what happened in the game itself. In the table, I’m trying to set the TOI, the possession and the success rate overall. I post the linemates and opponents, and success rates, below.

A dozen of our brethren made unambiguously negative statements about trading Marincin…my favourite was by DOMINOILER:

“I like the phrase ‘hot garbage’.. Oilers deal Martin Marincin for steaming pile of hot garbage.. It has a certain quality that rings in your ears, while boiling your blood.. How the F! do you divorce yourself from this shit show of a sports team right as they draft a generational talent.. FFS.. Locked in the ever cycling ‘because oilers’ hampster wheel..”

A dozen of our brethren made unambiguously negative statements about trading Marincin…my favourite was by DOMINOILER:

“I like the phrase ‘hot garbage’.. Oilers deal Martin Marincin for steaming pile of hot garbage.. It has a certain quality that rings in your ears, while boiling your blood.. How the F! do you divorce yourself from this shit show of a sports team right as they draft a generational talent.. FFS.. Locked in the ever cycling ‘because oilers’ hampster wheel..”

A dozen of our brethren made unambiguously negative statements about trading Marincin…my favourite was by DOMINOILER:

“I like the phrase ‘hot garbage’.. Oilers deal Martin Marincin for steaming pile of hot garbage.. It has a certain quality that rings in your ears, while boiling your blood.. How the F! do you divorce yourself from this shit show of a sports team right as they draft a generational talent.. FFS.. Locked in the ever cycling ‘because oilers’ hampster wheel..”

I’m sure you’ll note (if you read closely) that most of the posters in the thread you mention were greatly upset by the Reinhert trade in conjunction with the Marincin trade. They argued that Reinhert was hardly an upgrade on Maricnin, yet the Oilers had paid dearly for one and sent the other packing for a 4th. I think their concerns have largely been confirmed.

Yes, of course. But the reason, as you likely already know, that Fenwick and other measures are often favoured over goals is due to larger samples and things like goalering.You can have a good day possession-wise and come out -2.That’s still descriptive, btw.

Was going to have a “as you likely already know” in my original reply, but it slipped me mind.

Again, I thought the purpose of LT’s recaps is descriptive: what happened when each player was on the ice. If all I know is a player had a good night possession-wise, I assume he had a good game. If he came out -2, that affects my perception of his night. I can compare his -2 to his teammates to understand if he had a particularly bad night or it was bad all around. A +2, on the other hand, would take some of the sting out of bad possession numbers. 5v5 +/- is very useful. It correlates to success at a game level, season level, and career level.

Georges: Again, I thought the purpose of LT’s recaps is descriptive: what happened when each player was on the ice. If all I know is a player had a good night possession-wise, I assume he had a good game. If he came out -2, that affects my perception of his night. I can compare his -2 to his teammates to understand if he had a particularly bad night or it was bad all around. A +2, on the other hand, would take some of the sting out of bad possession numbers. 5v5 +/- is very useful. It correlates to success at a game level, season level, and career level.

McDavid hit 26 MPH on his second goal last night. An average standardbred racehorse travels its first quarter of a mile in a race at ~30 MPH.

Connor at top speed is just a touch off of that of a racehorse. I just shake my head at the ridiculousness of that statement.”

That goal was incredible to watch but I thought some greater context might be interesting.

The fastest skater alive is a guy named Pavel Kulizhnikov who in 2015 averaged 36.80 mph over 500 meters. Now that is with speed saktes and on a speed skating oval. Who knows how well he’d do on a rink with hockey skates and a stick but I think we have to acknowledge that Pavel can fly,

Part of what makes Connor McDavid unique is what he can do with a puck while travelling at high speed. How many guys there are in the NHL or in all of organized hockey that can hit 26 mph without a puck to worry about? I have no idea – maybe none, but I bet other NHL teams are trying to find some. Maybe Pavel’s phone is ringing off the hook.

Usain Bolt in his prime hit 30 mph in the 100 meters and his average speed over that distance was 23.5 mph. It is much easier to get up to speed on the track than on ice but you also decellerate much quicker on the track – Bolt won all those races because he wasn’t slowing down as fast as his competitors. McDavid wins because he isn’t slowing down at all. Ask Travis Hamonic.

Outstanding thoroughbreds have been clocked at max speeds of 55 to 60 mph over short stretches. Northern Dancer reached 58 mph on the track and once ran at over 16 miles per hour for 60 miles in a horse ultra marathon for big bucks according to his biographer Muriel Lennox. I am guessing his offspring can probably go much faster and or longer than that.

I don’t think we should be comparing McDavid to average animals but to super stars, human and animal which is what I am doing here. I don’t know if McDavid could skate for 60 miles but it wouldn’t surprise me. McDavid averaging 16 mph seems shall we say achievable.

But the most amazing performance ever measured in the animal kingdom was Sarah, a cheetah at the Cincinnati Zoo who in 2012 ran the 100 meters in 5.95 seconds reaching a top speed of 61 mph. We have no way of knowing how she’d do in skates but you certainly wouldn’t want her deciding you were dinner even if you were Usain Bolt or Connor McDavid. The interesting thing is she was just running for the sheer thrill of running – well she was chasing a truck. But you get the idea, Sarah was just playing. Who knows how fast she could go if she meant it and I would say the same thing is true of Connor McDavid.

You’re preaching to the choir, Georges. I already agreed with the inclusion way up top. I was merely speculating at why LT may feel differently.

There’s lots of things LT could do with that redundant column though (if anything)… maybe FF percentage year-to-date, to compare to the in-game numbers. Or maybe he does this kind of thing, or the goal thing. in separate posts.Say at the end of the month. All depends on what he wants to highlight, talk about at the time, etc.

You’re calling me a bully for quoting someone who said “top pair” then calling me out for referencing a more general audience of commenters many of whom overvalued Marincin…(agreed that the Reinhart trade added to the vitriol) who’s moving the goalposts now? How do you like them ambrosia apples (now I remember why Derek Zona hated me…I’ll go back to lurking now)

kgo: You’re calling me a bully for quoting someone who said “top pair” then calling me out for referencing a more general audience of commenters many of whom overvalued Marincin…(agreed that the Reinhart trade added to the vitriol)who’s moving the goalposts now?How do you like them ambrosia apples (now I remember why Derek Zona hated me…I’ll go back to lurking now)

Derek Zona hates me, too. So we have that in common. I didn’t mention Reinhart and I’ll thank you to be respectful.

kgo: You’re calling me a bully for quoting someone who said “top pair” then calling me out for referencing a more general audience of commenters many of whom overvalued Marincin…(agreed that the Reinhart trade added to the vitriol)who’s moving the goalposts now?How do you like them ambrosia apples (now I remember why Derek Zona hated me)

Lowetide’s not necessarily calling you out. He’s just trying to calmly manage the situation and guide discourse to friendly and reasonable levels. So we can all have respectful and meaningful exchanges.

Okay, I’ll open this up to the group.What WOULD you like to see in the table each game? Currently I have

Boxcars
Fenwick
Fenwick percentage
EV TOI
Comments

Which is followed by something like this:

Klefbom—Larsson went 30-9 together Fenwick (all numbers Fenwick and all numbers 5×5), including a tidy 23-5 with the McDavid line and 7-5 with the Nuge. The Swedes played most against Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland (12-9) and were 18-0 against the rest. Klefbom is going to get a lot of attention this season, on merit. Larsson is less flashy, but very effective. He’s a rocknrolla.
—

5v5 GF-GA is really, really important. It’s what happened. Here’s where winning happened, here’s where losing happened. Without that context, Fenwick is just Fenwick. It’s not winning and losing. But when you include GF-GA, you can get into did a player win or lose in a way we can be happy with, i.e., how did possession look?
The way you’re doing it, you’re setting winning at Fenwick as the goal. That is not the goal. Scoring more goals is the goal. And you’re leaving out score effects which takes you even further from what happened. So we can expect recaps where Russell (as an example) will get caved on Fenwick (and will get called out for it) in a game that we win by 2 and the Russell pairing comes out even (which won’t get mentioned in the present format,).

You seem committed to the idea we can understand the game through the numbers we record in the course of a game. 5v5 goals are the most important numbers on the record for tracking team and player performance.
Hoping you’ll respond. I’ll drop it if you don’t.

You know how volatile goals are in small samples and 1 game is uber small.

Very often the score doesn’t tell story of the game.

Fenwick describes the game better than corsi, Dangerous Fenwick (or xGF) describe the game better than Fenwick. We’ll have that available on a game level soon.

NHL coaches talk “process, process, process” that’s “winning or losing in way he can be happy with”

McLellan said after the game “last year we outscored our mistakes, tonight we didn’t make any”

So he wasn’t happy with the way they were winning earlier last year, even though they were winning.

Process.

The shot metrics describes the process waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than the score.

You can be interested in the final score and the process to get there equally, or one more than another, but its an individual’s choice on how they consume and enjoy hockey.

I like when LT posts multiple stats.

I bet many different people hook into the ones they prefer and ignore the rest.

That’s just fine.

To only post goals is huge mistake though. Doesn’t tell the story well and goals are most often the most at conflict with the eye test.

Also, most of LT’s readers are interesting in the process, in the score metrics etc.

Lowetide:
Okay, I’ll open this up to the group.What WOULD you like to see in the table each game? Currently I have

Boxcars
Fenwick
Fenwick percentage
EV TOI
Comments

Which is followed by something like this:

Klefbom—Larsson went 30-9 together Fenwick (all numbers Fenwick and all numbers 5×5), including a tidy 23-5 with the McDavid line and 7-5 with the Nuge. The Swedes played most against Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland (12-9) and were 18-0 against the rest. Klefbom is going to get a lot of attention this season, on merit. Larsson is less flashy, but very effective. He’s a rocknrolla.
—

What would you like to see?

Keep it the way it is, but include DFF when its available on a game level.

Give your readers all the info you think is important and let them decide out of the info that you give what is important to them.

Lowetide:
Okay, I’ll open this up to the group.What WOULD you like to see in the table each game? Currently I have

Boxcars
Fenwick
Fenwick percentage
EV TOI
Comments

Which is followed by something like this:

Klefbom—Larsson went 30-9 together Fenwick (all numbers Fenwick and all numbers 5×5), including a tidy 23-5 with the McDavid line and 7-5 with the Nuge. The Swedes played most against Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland (12-9) and were 18-0 against the rest. Klefbom is going to get a lot of attention this season, on merit. Larsson is less flashy, but very effective. He’s a rocknrolla.
—

What would you like to see?

I like the way you have laid this out currently. We all have our favorite things. Woodguy has plugged DFF above me and I agree with that but would point out that it’s a bit of an after-market product. By that I mean, shot attempts (corsi or fenwick), have a plus in that they are raw numbers, unmodified by someone else’s interpretation. If you use DFF, you’re adding a lens of interpretation to the picture. There’s a bit of sweet simplicity to the way LT lays out the raw fenwick (minor quibble: I preferred the old corsi use), the boxcars and then adds comments which are his own. The only interpretation there is HIS interpretation on the raw numbers.

That’s a minor philosophical point, though. You know I love me some DFF and game DFF was always a must-read over at G’s blog post-game.

My opinion, for whatever it’s worth, is that the current layout is what I’d prefer with the aforementioned minor quibble re: corsi vs fenwick.

I’m still not sure sharing RICKITHEBEAR’s quote is “”being a bully”I would love to see more people making predictions, and having them dug up like a time capsule and debated 5 years later.

Anyhow , I apologise LT for any disrespect, I’ll block myself until Larsson wins the Norris…

My wife was raised by parents and family from ethical careers.
Mom was a seat of flesh eating and infecious dicease WHO,
cousin is (FIS)!technical director for NA and oversees womens world cup races.
Wife director of racing and sailing program in baddeck.
Editor in post Media. You know a persons charecter when they maintain ethical standards when recieving death threats against here and her family ( My children).

She went thru much of our discourse.
Gave me a list of individuals on he she would fire on ethical grounds.

Quite funny actually.
She is the driving force around many of the letters she helped send to media sources and academia.

She says i have been a hammer when presenting ideas.
That my apraoch guarantees them to be defensive.
But she tells me I am ethically bound to take the position i have.

I’m sending out the Squid Signal. It’s like the bat signal, but with a dead squid on a 50,000 watt searchlight. Take a bucket. The smell WILL make you sick.

Giant Squid Overlord, are you there? I need you to do another picture. I want McDavid playing against the fastest entities in history, real or fictional. And scoring the goal he did last night. Maybe Brodie could be Speedy Gonzales. Others, please feel free to add input.

theDjdj: So if we trade for him the league investigates before its cleared? I swear they make decisions just to keep lawyers employed.

I suspect if the Oilers trade for Reinhart, the NHL won’t do anything unless some other club complains (which they won’t because, who cares, it’s Reinhart). Then they’ll have some internal, black-box investigation and the trade will stand.

That said, I don’t think Edmonton trades for Reinhart. Miller is the obvious target but I don’t see Vegas trading Miller. So my guess is nothing happens.

Duchapov seems to be looking good so far. Like a poor mans Conyak, only it might last more than 10 games this season ‘just because.’

As an aside, has there ever been a more polarizing player than Yakupov. He seems to split up the fan base of every team he plays for into one group of die hard supporters and another group of die hard haters (for lack of a better word). Oilers AND Blues fans are still following his career, hoping he finds success lol.

Lowetide:
Okay, I’ll open this up to the group.What WOULD you like to see in the table each game? Currently I have

Boxcars
Fenwick
Fenwick percentage
EV TOI
Comments

Which is followed by something like this:

Klefbom—Larsson went 30-9 together Fenwick (all numbers Fenwick and all numbers 5×5), including a tidy 23-5 with the McDavid line and 7-5 with the Nuge. The Swedes played most against Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland (12-9) and were 18-0 against the rest. Klefbom is going to get a lot of attention this season, on merit. Larsson is less flashy, but very effective. He’s a rocknrolla.
—

What would you like to see?

I liked to see the LT. version of the sunshine girl

In regards to the hockey, I enjoy the descriptors more and would prefer detailed stats every 6-8 games when they can tell us more.

1. CA60 is established by failings of offence. Weather nz can be trapped and blue line can be presed.
2. The puck is directed at the net. ga/corsi against has highest success rate of finding top 60 hd dmen.
3. X,y establishes the corsi hd density.
4. hD save % mean is established.
5. Goalies Save % performance can be measured versus the mean.
6. Goslies game by game performance ca be extrapolated versus avg graph shot density/ga
7. Elite open corsi supression starts. (Blocks, misses, closed shots)
8. The best supression dmen are identified.
9. Supression can be a huge affect on ga.
10. A true open hole shot chart for each forward, dman and goalie can be created.

5v5 GF-GA is really, really important. It’s what happened. Here’s where winning happened, here’s where losing happened. Without that context, Fenwick is just Fenwick. It’s not winning and losing. But when you include GF-GA, you can get into did a player win or lose in a way we can be happy with, i.e., how did possession look?
The way you’re doing it, you’re setting winning at Fenwick as the goal. That is not the goal. Scoring more goals is the goal. And you’re leaving out score effects which takes you even further from what happened. So we can expect recaps where Russell (as an example) will get caved on Fenwick (and will get called out for it) in a game that we win by 2 and the Russell pairing comes out even (which won’t get mentioned in the present format,).

You seem committed to the idea we can understand the game through the numbers we record in the course of a game. 5v5 goals are the most important numbers on the record for tracking team and player performance.
Hoping you’ll respond. I’ll drop it if you don’t.

You know how volatile goals are in small samples and 1 game is uber small.

Very often the score doesn’t tell story of the game.

Fenwick describes the game better than corsi, Dangerous Fenwick (or xGF) describe the game better than Fenwick.We’ll have that available on a game level soon.

NHL coaches talk “process, process, process”that’s “winning or losing in way he can be happy with”

McLellan said after the game “last year we outscored our mistakes, tonight we didn’t make any”

So he wasn’t happy with the way they were winning earlier last year, even though they were winning.

Process.

The shot metrics describes the process waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than the score.

You can be interested in the final score and the process to get there equally, or one more than another, but its an individual’s choice on how they consume and enjoy hockey.

I like when LT posts multiple stats.

I bet many different people hook into the ones they prefer and ignore the rest.

That’s just fine.

To only post goals is huge mistake though.Doesn’t tell the story well and goals are most often the most at conflict with the eye test.

Also, most of LT’s readers are interesting in the process, in the score metrics etc.

It’s like we’ve never met before. You keep trying to educate me on things I think you think I know nothing about. It’s fun.

“Small samples and volatile” aren’t relevant to describing what happened. Describing is different from inferring or predicting. Goals are what happened. Fenwick is a bunch of things that happened that didn’t lead to goals and a few that did.

You say that Fenwick describes the game better than Corsi. Why? How did you arrive at this? And then why is DFF even better at describing than Fenwick? DFF is pretty obscure and has a trust me, I know what I’m doing feel to it. It’s not simple. It’s not in the open. To my understanding, it (along with Manny’s xGF) can’t be recreated. So it can’t be tested. You’re an advocate but I’m not sure you yourself know or understand all the details of the calculations G is using. How do you know he did them right? (If you think the question is offside or impertinent, you’ve never built a calculating/reporting system before.) Why not shots? Everyone understands shots. Nothing to calculate there. I can check shots on a bunch of sites to see if a number is right. How many sites can I check DFF on?

Not sure why you think I asked LT to only include goals. Maybe read my post that suggested replacing the FF% column in his table. Having FF-FA and GF-GA in the same table would help connect process and results. I mentioned winning or losing in a way we can be happy with, but you must have missed that too. Show me coaches with bad records who are happy with their process. (I already know about Eakins.) Show me players who are committed to a process that doesn’t produce results. Results are the feedback mechanism for process. Follow process. Track process. Display results.

By the way, what’s the relationship between winning on 5v5 Fenwick and winning on 5v5 GF%? Do you think the question is important? If so, how would you go about trying to suss out an answer?

Getting back to DFF… I’d love for G to drop by. I’ve looked at his methodology and I remember having lots of questions. As an example, what data does G use to calculate the probabilities for different types of shots? Does he then use that same data to calculate DFF? Some of my first posts on here were on SF% and PDO as two independent factors that correlate with GF%. I mentioned that any shot-based measure that has a higher correlation with GF% would have to take some information from PDO. I can go back and look at G’s methodology post again. I know this kind of thing takes a lot of thought and work.

Lowetide:
Okay, I’ll open this up to the group.What WOULD you like to see in the table each game? Currently I have

Boxcars
Fenwick
Fenwick percentage
EV TOI
Comments

Which is followed by something like this:

Klefbom—Larsson went 30-9 together Fenwick (all numbers Fenwick and all numbers 5×5), including a tidy 23-5 with the McDavid line and 7-5 with the Nuge. The Swedes played most against Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland (12-9) and were 18-0 against the rest. Klefbom is going to get a lot of attention this season, on merit. Larsson is less flashy, but very effective. He’s a rocknrolla.
—

Lowetide:
Okay, I’ll open this up to the group.What WOULD you like to see in the table each game? Currently I have

Boxcars
Fenwick
Fenwick percentage
EV TOI
Comments

Which is followed by something like this:

Klefbom—Larsson went 30-9 together Fenwick (all numbers Fenwick and all numbers 5×5), including a tidy 23-5 with the McDavid line and 7-5 with the Nuge. The Swedes played most against Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland (12-9) and were 18-0 against the rest. Klefbom is going to get a lot of attention this season, on merit. Larsson is less flashy, but very effective. He’s a rocknrolla.
—

What would you like to see?

I would like to see a true open hole shot chart for each forward, dman and goalie.

As a coach you have nothing but process. You can’t control outcomes and neither can your athletes. You can only control inputs. More to the point if you start trying to control outcomes almost invariably you screw up the quality or quantity of your inputs.

“The archer ceases to be conscious of himself as the one who is engaged in hitting the bull’s-eye which confronts him. This state of unconscious is realized only when, completely empty and rid of the self, he becomes one with the perfecting of his technical skill, though there is in it something of a quite different order which cannot be attained by any progressive study of the art.” Eugen Herrigel.

Outcomes in hockey have a lot to do, as I have explained previously, with luck. This creates new problems (beyond how destructive goal orientation is to performance excellence) for any coach who tries to tie outcome to process as a feedback loop. The player messes up but the team scores by fluke- you don’t want the play duplicating that behaviour because over time bad practices will become bad outcomes. The player does everything right but his team gives up a goal because of bad luck – you don’t want them to give up doing everything right because over time good practices will produce good outcomes.

So why would we as fans want to be obsessed with outcomes when what the athletes and coaches can control is inputs and inputs are the only fair way of evaluating their play or their coaching?

I recognize this is a lot of information, but for my mind, it clearly takes us from the most general of information through to the most specific, and ultimately what wins or loses games.

Ideally, you’d have other stats to look at other aspects of the game, like passing completion tied into interception rates, hits, board battles, and puck retreival rates and others. I don’t beleive we’re there yet, as to the best of my knowledge these activities aren’t being tracked, but they would start to give us metrics for skills other than scoring.

After all, scoring is only one part of the game, right? And while I think most of us would agree it might be the most important, a deeper understanding of those other parts would probably still help enhance our understanding of the game as a whole, no?

Lowetide:
Okay, I’ll open this up to the group.What WOULD you like to see in the table each game? Currently I have

Boxcars
Fenwick
Fenwick percentage
EV TOI
Comments

Which is followed by something like this:

Klefbom—Larsson went 30-9 together Fenwick (all numbers Fenwick and all numbers 5×5), including a tidy 23-5 with the McDavid line and 7-5 with the Nuge. The Swedes played most against Gaudreau-Monahan-Ferland (12-9) and were 18-0 against the rest. Klefbom is going to get a lot of attention this season, on merit. Larsson is less flashy, but very effective. He’s a rocknrolla.
—

What would you like to see?

I’d like a disclaimer of small sample sizes (even on descriptive statistics)

Include only stuff that cannot be easily gleaned from watching the game, the highlights, or browsing the NHL.com or oilers.com game reports.

Including plus/minus or goal differential is redundant and pointless in this context. Watch the game. Watch the hightlghts. Just scan the NHL.com game stats. You get plus/minus or goal differential from all of them.

I wonder what’s more important process during a game, A well executed chip in to the zone that leads to a cycle in which heavy physical contact is initiated on the d which has a lasting effect but does not generate a meaningful shot metric or creating a shot metric event which unless there is a deflection or a lapse in nhl level goaltending has a very low chance of generating a goal and a far greater chance of leading to a turnover. I would dare to venture those that could be included in the completely subjective high danger chances.

Also, whatever strategy McPhee used to assemble his blue line confounds me. As a believer that a marginal to slightly more than marginal difference in player ability on the blue line is offset by proper side handedness, how does he end up with Miller and Engelland as his only viable right shooting options?

In place of the Fenwick percentage number, which is already built into the FF and FA numbers you provide, maybe a year-to-date Fenwick number to contrast with the in-game number?

Or a high danger number of some sort would be sweet instead too… for eg HDSC against for Dmen and HDSC For for Forwards.

But really, whatever turns your crank. And I have no idea what is out there I terms of stats for you after the game. I was a bit disappointed that GMoney didn’t have his usual post-game up last night at Nerd Alert.

As a coach you have nothing but process. You can’t control outcomes and neither can your athletes. You can only control inputs. More to the point if you start trying to control outcomes almost invariably you screw up the quality or quantity of your inputs.

“The archer ceases to be conscious of himself as the one who is engaged in hitting the bull’s-eye which confronts him. This state of unconscious is realized only when, completely empty and rid of the self, he becomes one with the perfecting of his technical skill, though there is in it something of a quite different order which cannot be attained by any progressive study of the art.” Eugen Herrigel.

Outcomes in hockey have a lot to do, as I have explained previously, with luck. This creates new problems (beyond how destructive goal orientation is to performance excellence) for any coach who tries to tie outcome to process as a feedback loop. The player messes up but the team scores by fluke- you don’t want the play duplicating that behaviour because over time bad practices will become bad outcome. The player does everything right but his team gives up a goal because of bad luck – you don’t want them to give up doing everything right because over time good practices will produce good outcomes.

So why would we as fans want to be obsessed with outcomes when what the ocach and athletes can control is inputs and inputs are the only fair way of evaluating their play or their coaching?

Hi VOR.

First off, I’m not talking about lower levels where athletes are trained, only about the pros. I think the calculus is different in the pros. Also, I agree with you on the first example and any capable coach would take the player aside and do some coaching.

As for the second example, luck evens out. There’s we did everything right and the puck went in off of a skate, a stick, a post and the goalie’s butt. But I’m guessing, most coaches don’t conclude that they did everything right on most goals against. There’s coaching to do here as well. Something broke down in our process and something bad happened.

Why do you have faith in a process? Because you have some empirical or theoretical evidence that the process leads to intended results. But then you also need to see the process working, i.e., results. Your faith has to be incredibly strong for you to continue doing things in exactly the same way despite a streak of unfavorable results. Poker gives you a long time horizon. People can be disciplined as long as they don’t go broke. Pro sports has a much shorter time horizon.

Slepyshev may do everything right. If he doesn’t score above AHL-replacement player level, he’ll have a short career. He can blame his luck. He can also question whether he was maybe doing everything right but just not doing the right things. Process matters because it leads to results. If it doesn’t lead to results, then it better lead to results soon. If not, at the NHL level, someone is out of a job. That’s just how it is.

As for only controlling inputs, there are a certain number of inputs an average player can control. A skilled player can control more. CMD, even more. The ability to make a play is not the same thing as the ability to make the same play the same way every time. So individual players aren’t exactly following the same process. Coaches have to understand this. There isn’t one process.

How do NHL coaches respond to losing? And how do they respond to winning? Are they more open to change when they’re losing or when they’re winning? Do they question themselves more and are they questioned more when they’re losing or when they’re winning?

Again, the reason we focus on outcomes is because outcomes contain information. In the long run, in multiple trials, luck evens out. Outcomes follow inputs (innate ability, cohesive team play). In the short run, there’s luck involved. But the long run is built up from a bunch of short runs. And most of the short runs have to follow the long run direction. So, in the present, the short run contains information as well.

rickithebear: My wife was raised by parents and family from ethical careers.
Mom was a seat of flesh eating and infecious dicease WHO,
cousin is (FIS)!technical director for NA and oversees womens world cup races.
Wife director of racing and sailing program in baddeck.
Editor in post Media. You know a persons charecter when they maintain ethical standards when recieving death threats against here and her family ( My children).

She went thru much of our discourse.
Gave me a list of individuals on he she would fire on ethical grounds.

Quite funny actually.
She is the driving force around many of the letters she helped send to media sources and academia.

She says i have been a hammer when presenting ideas.
Thatmy apraoch guarantees them to be defensive.
But she tells me I am ethically bound to take the position i have.

You’re arguing an ethical position on a hockey blog comments board? I’m pretty curious to see the list of people your wife would fire for being “unethical”.

The issue is that luck, while it evens out in the long run, doesn’t always even out during one full 82 game season. It actually can still be too small of a sample size.

The 2012-13 Leafs and the 2013-14 Avs are both examples of this. Despite being badly outshot throughout those seasons, Randy Carlyle and Patrick Roy were heralded as “great” coaches by many in the mainstream media for their teams’ results. Analytics concluded that the teams were being badly out possessed based on corsi numbers and that an unsustainable amount of luck was involved.

The flipside argument is the 2011-12 LA Kings where their underlying possession numbers were stellar but their luck and their results were sub-par in comparison. They appeared to sneak into the playoffs, but once there, showed their true capability.

The tactics and strategies employed by those coaches in the subsequent years led to results commensurate with their possession numbers.

At the elite levels the only difference between pro athletes and amateur athletes is the amount of money they have in their ass pocket. Ego is ego, drive is drive, professionalism isn’t about a paycheck, it is about a world view. In that world view you control every thing you can and let every thing else go. If something bad happens it is somebody else’s fault, if something good happens it is your doing. The calculus is identical.

Using hockey as the example, every GM knows that it takes time before you see a long term impact from a coaching change. So they are looking for process changes to tell them progress is being made (do the players feel safer, are less cheap shots being taken, do they win more puck battles). Don’t believe me, go back and read Peter Chiarelli’s comments from last year as the season went along. It is mostly process, process, process – very little about outcomes.

I don’t mean to be difficult but there is no evidence of luck evening out in the sense you mean. Luck creates noise in the signal in the first minute of the first scrimmage of rookie camp and that continues until the final minute of the final game of the Stanley Cup. The plus and minus values of those effects on a single player or a single team over a single season do not have to, and frequently do not combine to equal zero. This is true in all sports to some extent but luck determines more of the outcome of hockey games, seasons, and careers than in the case in most professional sports. That is a simple statistical reality.

Based on everything you post here you seem to have trouble excepting that luck is luck (for example your arguments about PDO’s predictive ability. You continue to display this world view in your response to me. “Outcomes follow inputs (innate ability, cohesive team play”) to quote you. The thing is that statement isn’t true about hockey. In hockey your proposed correlations are severly eroded by luck. This makes it particularly important in hockey to coach process. It also explains why professional hockey players are the most superstitious atheletes in sports.

The issue is that luck, while it evens out in the long run, doesn’t always even out during one full 82 game season.It actually can still be too small of a sample size.

The 2012-13 Leafs and the 2013-14 Avsare both examples of this.Despite being badly outshot throughout those seasons, Randy Carlyle and Patrick Roy were heralded as “great” coaches by many in the mainstream media for their teams’ results.Analytics concluded that the teams were being badly out possessed based on corsi numbers and that an unsustainable amount of luck was involved.

The flipside argument is the 2011-12 LA Kings where their underlying possession numbers were stellar but their luck and their results were sub-par in comparison.They appeared to sneak into the playoffs, but once there, showed their true capability.

The tactics and strategies employed by those coaches in the subsequent years led to results commensurate with their possession numbers.

I’m not sure we’re on the same topic.

But on the topic that you’re on, the 2011-12 Kings went from a dominant possession team to a meh possession team in the playoffs. They won with spectacular goaltending from Quick and a super high PDO. That completely reversed their horrible shooting % and super low PDO during the regular season. So luck did even out in their case. But that team isn’t an unqualified success for possession-leaning analytics types.

As for results being commensurate to possession numbers, now that corsica is back up you can check for yourself how that proposition has held up recently.

Keep doing what you are doing LT. In an ideal world you might provide:

1. Sophia Loren imagery.
2. Free form comments highlighting key stats, which will vary from game to game (which you provide).
3. Cult of Hockey’s contributions to chances for / against. These give me the most useful information for an individual game (although most posters seem to condescendingly dismiss these).

Most stats do not give me too much on a game by game basis. The cumulative stats for a reasonable sample are more interesting. (Goal difference is much better than Corsi.If I knew where to get GF% I would look at it, but +/- is okay as a substitute.)

A dozen of our brethren made unambiguously negative statements about trading Marincin…my favourite was by DOMINOILER:

“I like the phrase ‘hot garbage’.. Oilers deal Martin Marincin for steaming pile of hot garbage.. It has a certain quality that rings in your ears, while boiling your blood.. How the F! do you divorce yourself from this shit show of a sports team right as they draft a generational talent.. FFS.. Locked in the ever cycling ‘because oilers’ hampster wheel..”

1. What do you suppose PC and TMac were talking about in their first season in Edmonton, when they weren’t on their way to 103 points? Mostly process, process, process – very little about outcomes? It seems so straightforward to me. It’s a competitive league. Every coach is preaching process. How do they know they’re making progress? What motivates them to try different things?… Anyway, I believe you’ve said you’ve coached, so maybe this is personal for you. No problem. I’ll let it go.

2. When I say luck evens out, I’m not invoking the gambler’s fallacy, i.e., believing a string of bad luck will be followed by a string of good luck. I mean the effect of a string of good/bad luck diminishes as you make more observations (i.e., increase the size of the sample) of a random variable. The mean of the sample (the typical performance) approaches the expected value of the random variable as sample size increases. That is a simple statistical reality that I’m aware of.

As for the statistical reality you’re referring to above, I believe you referenced a master’s thesis on this topic. That thesis applied the work of Tom Tango to hockey. Here’s a link describing Tango’s method and offering a sort of proof for why it’s valid.

It’s an interesting read and pretty straightforward to follow. The comments section is fun; Sunny Mehta makes some excellent points. I”m not sure you’re motivated to discuss it, but that simple statistical reality you cite isn’t quite as real as you may believe it to be.

if you meant something else, then I guess I need elaboration. Your description of noise in the signal from the first scrimmage to the winning of the Cup is poetic. I’m not sure I understand the math involved. I pointed out to you before that your argument for parity and the decisive role of luck didn’t jive with the reality that 4 teams have won the past 9 Cups. Not sure if you worked out the odds of that happening under the assumption of absolute parity. They’re not good.

I guess what I really wish is that you would sometimes use statistics or math in your arguments, instead of just arguments and anecdotes in your arguments. I think it would make us both feel a little better. You would be vindicated. And I would be convinced.

3. I have a habit of doing the math myself. Because I often don’t understand it. And that bothers me. The PDO stuff is very basic, not sure what you’ve gleaned from my posts. Happy to recap. I do have trouble excepting that luck is luck. But I accept it just fine.

This, tho…

“Outcomes follow inputs (innate ability, cohesive team play”) to quote you. The thing is that statement isn’t true about hockey. In hockey your proposed correlations are severly eroded by luck. This makes it particularly important in hockey to coach process.

… just hurts my head. You’re saying the same thing I’m saying, except you’re holding process up as a fetish: luck severely erodes the connection between outcomes and inputs, boys, so let’s stick to process and pray to luck. I’m saying it’s more like: we can’t control luck but we can control what we do and if we control what we do and we’re good enough as individuals and as a team, we can expect to see good results… but, hey, no harm in praying to luck.

It’s like we’ve never met before. You keep trying to educate me on things I think you think I know nothing about. It’s fun.

Well, when you write this:

The FF% column in the player table is redundant once you’ve listed 5v5 FF-FA. You should consider replacing it with 5v5 GF-GA.
5v5 GF-GA is really, really important. It’s what happened. Here’s where winning happened, here’s where losing happened. Without that context, Fenwick is just Fenwick. It’s not winning and losing. But when you include GF-GA, you can get into did a player win or lose in a way we can be happy with, i.e., how did possession look?

My take away from it is that you think goals described what happened in a hockey game the best.

I wrote why that’s not true.

You wrote that 3 events describe what happened in a hockey game better than ~70 events. I disagree with that.

“Small samples and volatile” aren’t relevant to describing what happened. Describing is different from inferring or predicting. Goals are what happened. Fenwick is a bunch of things that happened that didn’t lead to goals and a few that did.
You say that Fenwick describes the game better than Corsi. Why? How did you arrive at this?

Corsi describes every shot attempt.

Fenwick desribes every shot attempt that wasn’t’ blocked.

It describes who got the puck to the net more and therefore describes what actually happened better.

And then why is DFF even better at describing than Fenwick?

DFF further describes each unblocked shot by assigning a “danger value” to each shot based on location and type of shot.

More information = more descriptive.

DFF is pretty obscure and has a trust me, I know what I’m doing feel to it. It’s not simple. It’s not in the open. To my understanding, it (along with Manny’s xGF) can’t be recreated. So it can’t be tested. You’re an advocate but I’m not sure you yourself know or understand all the details of the calculations G is using. How do you know he did them right? (If you think the question is offside or impertinent, you’ve never built a calculating/reporting system before.) Why not shots? Everyone understands shots. Nothing to calculate there. I can check shots on a bunch of sites to see if a number is right. How many sites can I check DFF on?

The danger value was figured out via shot location, timing, and type data vis a vi SH% from 2007 on .

G’s method was very different from Manny’s so when it turned out that DFF had a correlation to Manny’s xGF of .954 it was a good validation of both metrics. Two different methods of danger weighting shots essentially came to the same conclusion.

Not sure why you think I asked LT to only include goals. Maybe read my post that suggested replacing the FF% column in his table. Having FF-FA and GF-GA in the same table

When I read “replace FF with GF” it told me you wanted FF removed from the table.

If I erred, that’s on me.

By the way, what’s the relationship between winning on 5v5 Fenwick and winning on 5v5 GF%? Do you think the question is important? If so, how would you go about trying to suss out an answer?
Getting back to DFF… I’d love for G to drop by. I’ve looked at his methodology and I remember having lots of questions. As an example, what data does G use to calculate the probabilities for different types of shots? Does he then use that same data to calculate DFF? Some of my first posts on here were on SF% and PDO as two independent factors that correlate with GF%. I mentioned that any shot-based measure that has a higher correlation with GF% would have to take some information from PDO. I can go back and look at G’s methodology post again. I know this kind of thing takes a lot of thought and work.

Now you’re getting onto a different topic, that of prediction which should have its own thread.

You’re probably talking about how the relationship between points and shot metrics has waned in the last few seasons.

The answer to “why?” that most come up with, and which makes the most sense imo, is that the standard deviation of the shot metrics across teams has shrunk significantly over the last 10 years.

It used to be there were 5 or so “elite” teams and 7-8 “bad” teams. Up to half the league very good or very bad in regards to the shot metrics. It was easier for the cream to rise to the top and the flotsam to sink.

Now the standard deviation has shrunk and consequently their predictive value has shrunk as well.

Instead of getting lots of matchups where teams’ CF% are ~5% apart, you have many more where the spread is under 3%.

It actually introduces more luck into the outcomes of each game. I know you’re thrilled that I wrote that, but its true.

I also think it significantly increases the value of above average goalies.

Also,

If you want to ask G some questions that I cannot answer (I did not and could not do the work on DFF) its best to ask him on twitter. He’ll generally post there.

– This is what I meant by setting context. Winning Fenwick generally goes hand in hand with winning goals. When you win both, you’re winning the right way… outscoring the opponent while controlling the play.

– The LAK had positive 5v5 Fenwick differential even when they had negative goal differential. If you’re right and Fenwick better describes what happened than goals, a Kings fan who read a season’s worth of Fenwick recaps should’ve had no complaints.

– If the criteria for more descriptive is more events, we should prefer Corsi; we should also consider including faceoffs.

– If the criteria is more information = more descriptive, at a season level, 5v5 goal differential provides the most information on overall goal differential, which provides the most information on points in the standings.

– LT includes goals, assists, and points which relate to the GF part of goals; I take it you want him to remove those; I want him to add GF and GA.

– How many sites can I check DFF on? If it’s just one, how do I know that the number I’m seeing is correct? Can I calculate DFF myself?

– I’m thrilled with everything that you write. I started posting because I saw G talking about math and hockey and I wanted to join in. He left. Now you’re the only poster on here who regularly uses numbers (other than ricki). I missed the window where there were more mathish people involved in these conversations. My loss.

– This is what I meant by setting context. Winning Fenwick generally goes hand in hand with winning goals. When you win both, you’re winning the right way… outscoring the opponent while controlling the play.

Not in individual games. Over a season yes, in a game, no.

– The LAK had positive 5v5 Fenwick differential even when they had negative goal differential. If you’re right and Fenwick better describes what happened than goals, a Kings fan who read a season’s worth of Fenwick recaps should’ve had no complaints.

It would also lead them to ask questions like “why is our Fenwick dominance not turning into goal dominance?” LAK changed coaches to change that equation. All the verbal around Sutter —> Stevens is about “scoring more”

– If the criteria for more descriptive is more events, we should prefer Corsi; we should also consider including faceoffs.

I don’t like to limit data at all. The more the merrier.

– If the criteria is more information = more descriptive, at a season level, 5v5 goal differential provides the most information on overall goal differential, which provides the most information on points in the standings.

At the end of the season yes. In an individual game, no.

– LT includes goals, assists, and points which relate to the GF part of goals; I take it you want him to remove those; I want him to add GF and GA.

At no point did I or would I ever ask LT to remove information. This is a very poor assumption. Its like you’ve never conversed with me here! 🙂

– How many sites can I check DFF on? If it’s just one, how do I know that the number I’m seeing is correct? Can I calculate DFF myself?

Only one. You can match it up to the other public xGF and see what you get. I think you downloaded G’s data today so you’ll know soon.

– I’m thrilled with everything that you write. I started posting because I saw G talking about math and hockey and I wanted to join in. He left. Now you’re the only poster on here who regularly uses numbers (other than ricki). I missed the window where there were more mathish people involved in these conversations. My loss.

I miss it too. I learned a ton and I’m not qualified when the conversation gets very mathy.

G left for the same reason I don’t post as much. The portion of the comment section has turned hostile about counting stuff in a hockey game. It used to be the one place you didn’t have people telling you to watch the game. Things change.

I still post because there are still lots of great people here, but the conversations sprouting out of the posts (like the genesis of WoodMoney) are very few and far between.

– Twitter is gross.

It has a mute and block buttons so you control your feed. You can make it non-gross. I chat with G, Wheatnoil, FRJohn, CodexRex, Tyler Dellow, Jon Willis, Kent Wilson, Hbomb, Showerhead, Pat McLean and many others all the time.

Georges,
– I went and checked on the individual games I had from last season. At a team level, there’s no relationship. Winning or losing on Fenwick doesn’t tell you much about winning or losing on goals.

Yes.

My contention is that the score doesn’t always tell the story of the game.

Let’s look at the score of 3-0.

Game 1

Edmonton 3 – Calgary 0

EDM FF% 60.4% vs CGY FF% 39.6%

The score and FF% tells a similar story on the face of it.

Edmonton owned the game both via score and FF%

How about Jan 29/2014?

Edmonton 3 San Jose 0

EDM FF% 24.1% vs SJS FF% 75.9%

Not exactly what you’d expect eh?

I know this is an extreme example, but I’m trying to show you that that score doesn’t tell the story of the game nearly as well as the FF% does.

If you remember that game there is no way on Gord’s Green Earth you would agree that the score told the story of the game.

If you watched you knew that Edmonton was beaten like a rented mule, but Scrivens wouldn’t break while Niemi couldn’t stop a beachball. (somethings never change…….)

You’re right that there is no relationship between winning and losing at the game level with FF%.

We were talking about describing the game, not predicting it.

– I think there is a relationship at a player level, however. I did the work quickly so I could’ve made a mistake. But it makes sense to me…
– Anyway, life stuff calls so I’m leaving for an indefinite long weekend.
– It’s been fun chatting with you during my time here, WG. Best of luck with PuckIQ. I hope it rocks for you guys!

Always fun to talk to you too Georges.

One day you’ll accept how much luck there is in hockey and we’ll sing and dance and drink beer.

Oh dang, that post was it’s own mess of hot garbage, i must have been really up on marincin.. LT, you do too good of a sell job on prospects, i was obviously stoned on marincin pipe dreams.. as a guest on your show a couple days ago pointed out, marincin -> gryba was a meh trade and never of the calibre that warranted my hyperbolistic rant.. shamed hard, in the end, seems a fitting outcome..